OC Immigration Attorney

Facts:
Rainford was a native and citizen of Jamaica. He was admitted to the U.S. as lawful permanent resident on March 27, 1988. On April 30, 1991, he was convicted for criminal possession of a weapon.  The Immigration and Naturalization Service charged him with deportability as an alien convicted of a firearms offense under section 241(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Rainford conceded deportability but was eligible for adjustment of status to permanent resident if he can show “admission.” Rainford was found deportable by the immigration judge on June 17, 1992. IJ held based on Matter of V-, 1 I&N Dec. 293 (BIA 1942) that Rainford was inadmissible because he would become immediately subject to deportation upon entry.

(Rainford had a U.S.C. father. As a son of a U.S. citizen, he is under family first preference for purpose of eligibility for a family based immigrant visa.  His priority date was also current.)

Procedural Posture:
Therefore, he was found to be ineligible for AOS.
Rainford appealed.

Issue:
(1) Whether Rainford would become immediately subject to deportation upon entry due to his criminal conviction.
(2) Whether Rainford is admissible to the U.S., thereby meeting the second condition for AOS eligibility.

Holding:
(1)    No (see reasoning)
(2)    Yes. BIA Held that Rainford was admissible to the U.S. and therefore eligible for AOS; remanded case to IJ.

Rule:
An alien convicted of criminal possession of a weapon is deportable. However, such a conviction does not preclude a finding of admissibility in connection with an application for adjustment of status, and it may not serve as a ground of deportability if the alien’s status is adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident.

Reasoning:
Compared Matter of Rafipour, 16 I&N Dec. 470 (BIA 1978) and used it as a key case.
The BIA ruled in Matter of Rafipour that an alien would no longer be deportable pursuant to section 241(A)(5) of the Act for his earlier conviction, once he was admitted as a lawful permanent resident. Likewise, the Board in the instant case reasoned that Rainford was deportable for a crime for which there is no corresponding ground of exclusion explicitly stated in the Act. Further, the Board reasoned that there was “no indication in the Act or its legislative history that Congress ever intended to bar this class of aliens . . . from becoming lawful permanent residents.” Although the ground of deportability was different from Matter of Rafipour, the Board extended the same reasoning to Rainford’s ground of deportability.

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca has reversed his support for a controversial deportation program, announcing Wednesday that he will not comply with federal requests to detain suspected illegal immigrants arrested in low-level crimes.

The sheriff’s dramatic turnaround came a day afterCalifornia Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris issued a legal directive advising that compliance with the requests is discretionary, not mandatory.

Until then, Baca had insisted that he would honor the requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold some defendants for up to 48 hours. He was an outspoken opponent of the Trust Act, which would have required California law enforcement officials to disregard the requests in many cases, declaring that he would defy the measure if it passed.

Baca has also been sued by the American Civil Liberties Union for allegedly denying bail to immigration detainees.

Now, he appears ready to do more or less what was proposed in the Trust Act, which was vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown in September.

The change of heart from Baca, a Republican in a heavily Democratic county, comes as GOP leaders are warming to immigration reform in an effort to counteract dismal support from Latino voters. Last month, Baca closed the 1,100-bed Mira Loma immigration detention center, which earned his agency up to $154 a day for each detainee, after contract negotiations with ICE broke down.

None of those considerations were at play, a Baca spokesman said. The sheriff’s reversal was prompted solely by Harris’ opinion, which contradicted advice from Los Angeles County attorneys that the requests were mandatory, said the spokesman, Steve Whitmore.

Baca joins Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck,who announced a similar policy in October. San Francisco and Santa Clara counties also decline to honor some types of ICE holds.

The change may not take effect until early next year. Baca’s staff must first flesh out the details of the new policy, which would apply only to those arrested in misdemeanors who do not have significant criminal records. The department would still honor federal detention requests for those accused of serious or violent crimes.

Under the federal Secure Communities program, all arrestees’ fingerprints are sent to immigration officials, who flag suspected illegal immigrants and request that they be held for up to 48 hours until transfer to federal custody.

Secure Communities has come under fire for ensnaring minor offenders when its stated purpose is to deport dangerous criminals and repeat immigration violators. According to federal statistics, fewer than half of those deported in Los Angeles County since the program’s inception in 2008 have committed felonies or multiple misdemeanors. Critics say immigrants have become fearful of cooperating with police.

“The last thing we want is victims to be frightened to come forward,” Whitmore said.

ICE officials said Baca’s new policy is in line with federal priorities and will affect only a “very small number” of cases.

“The identification and removal of criminal offenders and other public safety threats is U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s highest enforcement priority,” the agency said in a statement.

Immigrant rights advocates called Baca’s announcement a long overdue breakthrough.

“This will send a very strong message nationwide that in … the most multicultural city in the nation, the sheriff is there to protect and to serve, not to deport,” said Jorge-Mario Cabrera, communications director for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.

Supporters of the Trust Act, which was reintroduced in modified form by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) earlier this week, said it is still necessary because detention policies should not vary by jurisdiction.

“It’s imperative that California have a uniform statewide policy. It’s essential that people not receive different treatment under the law as they’re driving up and down the 5,” said Chris Newman, legal director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

Baca has not taken a position on the new Trust Act, which is likely to evolve during the legislative process, Whitmore said.

We recently received the good news that one of our clients would be released from Adelanto on bond. We presented a mountain of evidence proving his ties to the community and record of past attendance at court hearings. We argued that although his crime was serious, he could be counted on to attend all future hearings. Additionally, we provided the court with medical records showing he had substantial health problems that required immediate assistance that could not be provided while in detention.

The judge agreed with us despite the government attorney’s objections. The government reserved appeal, but did not file an appeal. Our client was released a few days later after the family was able to collect the necessary funds.

The Nunez Firm occasionally handles bond hearings on a case-by-case basis. If you require assistance for a detained friend or relative, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a consultation with managing attorney Jay Nunez.

Following scrutiny from a California lawmaker, the University of California is shutting down a controversial college program for illegal immigrants, though the reasons for the closure are not satisfying critics of the so-called National Dream University.

Critics of the plan of the so-called National Dream University (NDU) welcomed the decision to stop the program, though they weren’t satisfied with the reasons given for its closure.

“I believe the procedural issue gave UCLA an out, but it was public pressure and public scrutiny during such difficult economic times that ultimately turned Dream University into a nightmare for UCLA President and regents,” says California Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Twin Peaks).

NDU earlier this summer began actively recruiting those seeking a college degree and a career in activism focused on immigration issues. Its website, which has since been taken down,  promoted “an educational opportunity to those who have demonstrated leadership and commitment to the immigrant and/or labor rights movements {with admission} open to everyone, regardless of their immigration status.”

Operated by the UCLA Labor Center and the National Labor College, NDU would have offered credit for online courses in immigrant rights and political advocacy. At about $2,500, tuition was thousands less than what legal residents pay to attend UCLA, one of California’s premier public universities.

We recently received good news that our motion to reopen was granted. The client was ordered deported a couple years ago after her previous attorney abandoned her in immigration court. After she was ordered deported, she married a US citizen and he filed for her to obtain a green card based on the advice of a previous attorney. The I-130 visa petition was approved; however, the I-485 application to adjust status was denied because she had an outstanding removal order. The client came to me very frustrated with her experiences with other immigration attorneys. She had received bad advice numerous times.

I advised that we must first file a motion to reopen the removal proceedings before we can pursue the adjustment of status. I suggested that we contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement to seek a joint motion to reopen, and the client agreed.

I prepared the request for joint motion to reopen and provided ICE with proof that the husband had significant medical problems and would experience extreme hardship if his wife is not permitted to adjust status and remain in the United States. After some negotiations the ICE attorney agreed to the joint motion to reopen. We filed the motion with the court and the judge granted the motion.

The next step is to ask the judge to terminate proceedings so that we can adjust status through USCIS. There will be an interview and I plan to attend it to make sure the process is concluded smoothly.

If you have an outstanding removal order in Los Angeles Immigration Court, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally meet with you to discuss the options available to you.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced its plans to expand backdoor amnesty.  Beginning in late April, DHS will suspend all non-detained dockets for illegal immigrants in four additional jurisdictions, as it previously did in Baltimore and Denver, for two weeks.  These jurisdictions include Detroit, New Orleans, Orlando, and Seattle.  In May, DHS will partially suspend the non-detained docket in New York City and then in July, it will implement the same procedures in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

This means that DHS intends to solely focus on detained cases in these jurisdictions, meaning those who come to the attention of law enforcement.  But if the illegal or criminal immigrant bonds out of jail, they can be put on the non-detained docket and could potentially remain in the U.S.  This decision is just another part of the Obama administration’s plan to grant administrative amnesty to potentially millions of illegal immigrants.

If you or a loved one is in immigration court in Los Angeles or San Diego, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation.

TIJUANA, Mexico (AP) — Agustin Portillo checks the oil in his wife’s car, stores her luggage in her trunk and then drives her from his apartment in Tijuana to the U.S. border entry port because she is too afraid to maneuver the twisting streets of this sprawling, violent city by herself.

As they wait in the hours-long checkpoint line, he kisses and holds her hand. A romantic ballad comes on the radio and he sings to her softly. She responds with a smile.

When they are nearly at the border checkpoint, Agustin signs. He kisses his wife and steps out of the car. This is as far as he can go. After 20 years of living with his wife in Los Angeles, he is stuck here, on the wrong side of the fence.

Love, it turns out, does not conquer all, especially when it comes to U.S. immigration law.

“To see your family go and you can’t go with them, it breaks your heart,” he said.

It’s a common misconception that an illegal alien married to a U.S. citizen is immediately granted “green card” status or citizenship. But Ana and Agustin, and thousands of couple like them, know the truth.

Ana, 60, is an immigrant from El Salvador who was allowed to become a U.S. citizen because of her homeland’s war-torn past. She has a son who is a legal resident in Las Vegas and another son who is an illegal immigrant in Los Angeles. Her three grandchildren were born in the United States.

Agustin, 49, is an illegal immigrant from Mexico without much money, an unattractive candidate for legal status under U.S. immigration law.

They can live together in one of the poor, violence-plagued nations that they fled decades ago, or they can live like this, divided by a man-made border, desperate for the U.S. government to bless their marriage and unite their lives once again.

Read more at Associated Press here.

We recently received a green card approval for the wife of an US Citizen residing in Long Beach, California. The couple has been together for several years and they married in 2011. The wife is originally from Switzerland and entered the United States on the Visa Waiver Program.

The couple met through a mutual friend in 2010. After dating long distance for a couple of years, the husband proposed marriage and she accepted. In 2011, they hired The Nunez Firm to assist with the adjustment of status process. We helped them collect all the necessary paperwork including evidence that the marriage was entered into in good faith and not for immigration purposes. We handled all the forms (including the I-485, I-130, G-325A, I-765 and G-28) and we prepared the packet of evidence. Additionally, we were able to obtain an expedited advance parole document allowing the wife to visit her ill mother in Europe while the case was pending.

Before the interview with USCIS in Los Angeles, I met with the couple and advised on what to expect at the interview. I told them what questions to expect and assured them that I would be at the interview to make sure they were treated respectfully and fairly.

The officer was very thorough, but respectful and patient during the green card interview. The officer approved the case on the spot and the couple was very emotional about starting their new life together.

If you are considering the adjustment of status process, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally meet with you to help you understand whether your situation is eligible for a marriage based green card. The Nunez Firm handles countless marriage based green cards every year and our reputation among our clients and the USCIS adjudicators is unparalleled.

TRAC released a report a few days ago regarding deportation and removal statistics over the last two years.

In deportation proceedings initiated during July – September 2011 by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the nation’s 50 plus Immigration Courts, only 7,378 individuals — just 13.8 percent of the total — were charged with having engaged in criminal activities. Of those targeted, the proportion of alleged “criminals” is down significantly from the already low level of 16.5 percent during FY 2010.

Not only has ICE targeted relatively few criminals as the basis for seeking deportation in these court proceedings, but this proportion has been declining steadily throughout the past year: 15.8 percent were charged with engaging in criminal activity during the first quarter period (October – December 2010), 15.1 percent during the second quarter (January – March 2011), 14.9 percent during the third quarter (April – June 2011), and finally 13.8 percent during the fourth quarter (July – September 2011). The average rate across the four quarters for FY 2011 was 14.9 percent.

TRAC’s findings appear to contrast sharply with the White House’s announcement that: “Under the President’s direction, for the first time ever the Department of Homeland Security has prioritized the removal of people who have been convicted of crimes in the United States.” The findings also are hard to reconcile with ICE’s recent press statements that claimed that during the past year the agency had targeted a large and increasing number of convicted criminals for deportation.

If you or a loved one is in immigration court proceedings and need attorney representation, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally meet with you during a free consultation to discuss and explain the options available to you.

Recently one of our clients was approved for a green card through the diversity lottery process. He originally came to the United States in 2000 as a student. He met his wife a year later and the couple married. She petitioned for him to get his green card, but after at least 5 interviews, two motions to reopen and countless requests for evidence, he was placed in removal proceedings. He was ordered deported in absentia.

He hired The Nunez Firm two years ago asking us to reopen his deportation case and fight for his adjustment of status to permanent residency. We were successful in reopening his case. The immigration judge agreed to terminate the removal proceedings because we argued that my client still had an open case with USCIS that was awaiting adjudication.

After the removal proceedings were terminated, my client won the diversity lottery and asked me to assist in processing the green card. The processing of a diversity lottery based adjustment is generally fairly routine; however, his other case with USCIS had been pending for over 8 years already. Initially, I told him that I believed we had a less than 50% chance to win his case because there were several issues complicating his adjustment.

We filed for the adjustment of status earlier this year. After not hearing from USCIS for several months, I followed up with them asking why we had not received an interview notice. USCIS agreed to schedule an interview. At the interview, the officer seemed to stone-walling us. She had not read the file and was not prepared. She said she would have a decision to us within 30 days. I reminded her that diversity lottery adjustment cases must be adjudicated by September 30th or they become moot.

After 30 days, we did not receive a decision. I drove to LA again and asked to speak with her. She said she still had not reviewed the file, but she did not believe he was eligible for adjustment because he was out of status. I explained that despite being out of status, the case law I provided in my legal brief clearly stated that he was eligible for adjustment of status despite falling out of status because he was still a spouse of a US citizen.

She said she would review that case law and would have a decision to me within a week. I reminded her that we only had 20 days left before September 30th.

Once again, she did not issue a decision. I drove back to LA three more times over the next three weeks including a visit on September 28th to speak to a supervisor. We contacted US congressmen to get them involved as well. Finally, on September 30th, my client called me. He was very excited and announced that he just checked his case status online and the case was approved. I was shocked as well, but very happy for him.

If you are considering the adjustment of status process, contact The Nunez Firm to schedule a free consultation. Managing attorney Jay Nunez will personally meet with you at our Irvine office and discuss your case and any possible options available to you.